Author: Alex Jidarian

Constitutional reforms doomed to failure – Armenian opposition MP
Arminfo
18 Dec 04
Yerevan, 18 December: “The draft constitutional changes proposed
by the Armenian authorities are doomed to failure in their present
form,” a member of the Armenian National Assembly from the opposition
Justice bloc and the leader of the National Democratic Party, Shavarsh
Kocharyan, said at a meeting with journalists at the Azdak club today.
He said that since the overwhelming majority of the people do not trust
the authorities, it is almost impossible for the draft constitutional
changes proposed by the ruling coalition to receive the necessary
support from one third of the overall number of voters to be adopted.
“This can only be done through massive falsification of the results
of the plebiscite. However, I do not think that the powers that be
will do so because they resort to any violations only when their
self-preservation is at stake,” Kocharyan said.
At the same time, the only way out of the current situation would be
to put up for debate by the people draft constitutional amendments
resulting from public concord, he pointed out.
“If representatives of the ruling coalition started a dialogue
with the opposition on constitutional reforms not in words, but
in deeds, then we would regard the basic law as important to the
country’s future without changing our position on the illegitimacy
of the regime and would probably reach an agreement on this issue,”
Shavarsh Kocharyan said.
Passage omitted: The Justice bloc has submitted its own constitutional
changes to the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

La Padania, Italia
domenica 5 dicembre 2004
Con l’immigrazione confluiscono in Europa integralismo, terrorismo e
criminalità
Turchia, non aprire all’invasione silenziosa
È in atto una politica di penetrazione del continente europeo
Il Comitato Pro Nativa Europa di Ferrara ha inviato ai vertici
dell’Unione Europea un Memorandum in cui sono illustrati i motivi che
rendono inaccettabile l’adesione della Turchia all’Ue. Riportiamo di
seguito la terza puntata del fascicolo.
CONQUISTA ISLAMICA IN AZIONE: INVASIONE MIGRATORIA E POLITICA DEL
VENTRE
L’immigrazione islamica non è un evento legato soltanto alla
congiuntura europea, ma una scelta politica di penetrazione in Europa
perseguita con un preciso disegno dall’insieme islamico
(Organizzazione della Conferenza Islamica), che l’ha programmata
nella conferenza di Lahore del 1974. La leva demografica è ritenuta
la modalità vincente dell’Islam per sommergere gli europei, i quali,
al contrario, per il ridotto tasso di natalità tendono a ridursi.
Cosicché Ernst Nolte ha acutamente considerato che all’Islam «una
conquista di tipo non bellico deve apparire possibile, anzi
probabile».
L’immigrazione, pertanto, è divenuta una questione complessa, da cui
dipende il permanere od il soffocamento della civiltà europea. Da un
lato l’economia europea ha bisogno di importare mano d’opera,
purtroppo non ben regolata dagli Stati e dalla stessa Unione.
Dall’altro lato si attua una precisa volontà politica dell’insieme
islamico, nel quale confluiscono tanto il fondamentalismo quanto il
terrorismo, di conquistare l’Europa con l’immigrazione.
Sicché le correnti immigratorie islamiche avvengono sotto regia, più
o meno occulta, della Turchia, che ne ha accompagnato e ne accompagna
tuttora l’afflusso clandestino in partenza dai porti islamici turchi
ed africani. Già l’8 gennaio 1998, quindi a fenomeno migratorio
intenso già da diversi anni, in una seduta in Roma dei capi delle
polizie dei Paesi più interessati agli sbarchi di clandestini,
l’accordo era unanime nell’ammettere che tale flusso era diretto da
organizzazioni aventi la loro base in Turchia.
Il punto discriminante per definire l’atteggiamento dell’Europa
sull’Islam è quello di stabilire se tale movimento politico-religioso
sia totalitario oppure no. Qui non c’è spazio per disamine
dottrinali. La via più rapida è storicizzare l’esperienza di oltre
tredici secoli di regimi islamici, per capire che essi si traducono
in assolutismi politici, da cui non vi è ritorno allo stato laico
democratico ed alla libertà sia religiosa sia politica.
Coloro che ritengono di imporre all’Islam con la forza laicità e
democrazia, così come intesi in Occidente, prospettano una soluzione
impossibile. L’Islam non condivide e non intende condividere il
potere con alcuna forza politica diversa dall’Islam. Per l’Unione
Europea è urgente e grave decisione politica prendere provvedimenti
rapidi e radicali, fin che ne ha la possibilità.
L’Europa, che è scampata di recente a due totalitarismi, quello
nazi-fascista e quello comunista, ha davanti a sé il problema di
salvaguardarsi da un totalitarismo più difficile da contenere e da
combattere per le sue ambiguità contenutistiche di tipo religioso.
Gli immigrati, su posizioni religiose diverse dall’Islam, pur
conservando la loro fede si integrano nelle società degli Stati
Europei, che hanno dato loro accoglienza. Gli islamici non si
integrano, costituiscono in ogni Stato comunità separate a se stanti.
I modelli di integrazione seguiti nei diversi Stati europei sono
falliti. Una schiera di sociologi e politologi invece di mettere in
luce l’irriducibilità volitiva ed ideologica islamica, ne fanno
addebito agli Stati europei passando a chiedere nel nome della
libertà religiosa, ignorata e calpestata dagli islamici, di piegare
alla loro immodificabile ortoprassi strumenti giuridici e princìpi
etici. Peraltro, l’impossibile integrazione islamica in Europa è
altresì la riprova di quanto sia fallace l’ideologia americana di
esportare la democrazia all’interno dei regimi islamici.
I musulmani in Europa, sunniti e sciiti, hanno un solo obiettivo
politico, sentito fanaticamente come un dovere religioso: divenire
maggioranza. Sono di dominio pubblico le esternazioni islamiche, che
essi conquisteranno l’Europa con il ventre delle loro donne. Nelle
moschee si invitano le donne islamiche a partorire ciascuna almeno
cinque figli. La mentalità inculcata agli islamici è di essere
fratelli soltanto fra di loro, e di considerare il non islamico non
solo un infedele ma un nemico.
Dunque, l’immigrazione islamica è un’invasione, e come tale è
predicata dagli islamici che la sublimano come una nuova egira, dopo
quella operata da Maometto, il quale si trasferì con un gruppo di
suoi seguaci dalla Mecca a Yathrib (oggi Medina), finendo per
assoggettare tutti al suo potere, cacciando ed uccidendo quanti si
opponevano.
Ma l’Europa, che sta sottovalutando la sfida totalitaria dell’Islam,
sarà in grado di reagire? In questo momento i politici Europei sono
nella medesima condizione mentale dei politici di Bisanzio, i quali
disputavano sul sesso degli angeli, mentre l’Islam si affacciava come
sempre da nemico alla soglia della loro capitale. Quando Bisanzio
avvertì il pericolo era troppo tardi, ragion per cui restò
conquistata e distrutta. I politici europei, allorché discutono sul
come esportare la democrazia nei regimi islamici e sul come integrare
i musulmani in Europa, non percepiscono la realtà distruttiva
incombente, ma vivono di astrazioni cullandosi in sogni e perdendosi
in utopie.
Il Consiglio e la Commissione dell’Unione Europea non hanno colto il
senso della proposta, da più parti avanzata e riformulata da Giacomo
Biffi a Bologna, di distinguere nell’immigrazione tra non islamici
integrabili ed islamici inintegrabili. È, infatti, una concezione
politicamente suicida l’accoglimento di una minoranza islamica
aggressiva e totalitaria, che ha nel suo programma e nei suoi intenti
il non rispetto della maggioranza, e che si organizza ed agisce per
combatterla e sottometterla. In definitiva. non si tratta in generale
di chiudere le Porte all’immigrazione. ma soltanto in generale di
bloccare l’immigrazione islamica invasiva.
BELLIGERANZA SIA IDEOLOGICA SIA ARMATA
Il Consiglio e la Commissione dell’Unione Europea devono prendere
atto che fra le religioni orientali approdate in Europa, solo l’Islam
costituisce un gravissimo problema di ordine pubblico permanente.
E lo sta sempre più divenendo, ormai alla soglia di una guerra non
dichiarata. L’Islam si presenta come una religione, quando è
piuttosto un movimento ideologico politico-religioso, cioè una forza
politica che ha assunto come contenuto ideologico la fede religiosa.
Religione e politica (quindi potere, stato e così via) sono
inscindibili. In questa sua natura di movimento politico, che
considera il sentimento religioso la quintessenza della politica, va
rinvenuta la spiegazione della sua differenza dalle altre religioni
orientali.
Questo carattere è così profondo nell’Islam che ne fa un movimento
rivoluzionario e nel contempo un movimento sovversivo permanente nel
conculcare ogni forma di cultura politica e religiosa, ogni sistema
di civiltà diversa dalla identità, che in partenza dal Corano, ha
sviluppato. (…).
Per i europei che considerano il nazi-fascismo come un modello di
totalitarismo classico, che sono arrivati tardi a comprendere la
natura totalitaria del comunismo, cogliere un totalitarismo atipico
rispetto ai totalitarismi europei come quello islamico potrà essere
un risultato sofferto, augurabilmente non troppo lontano nel tempo. È
opportuno, dunque, che il Consiglio e la Commissione dell’Unione
Europea affrontino la questione della natura totalitaria dell’Islam,
prima ancora che diventi impossibile una strategia di difesa
all’interno della stessa Europa. La prima autodifesa è tanto politica
quanto giuridica e dovrebbe trovare nella Costituzione europea una
norma di divieto per ogni movimento di ispirazione ideologica
totalitaria e di istigazione alla conquista esclusiva del potere.
Il punto dirimente, sia sulla natura totalitaria dell’Islam come
ideologia politico-religiosa sia sul suo obiettivo politico-religioso
di islamizzare l’Europa per detenerne il potere assoluto, è dato
dalla realtà in atto di forza belligerante, che ha dichiarato guerra
all’Europa, anche se il Consiglio e la Commissione dell’Unione
Europea fingono di non vedere. E’ sufficiente constatare le forme di
ostilità in atto dell’islam in Europa. La prima forma assunta
dall’immigrazione islamica è quella ideologica di lotta ai simboli
cristiani.
L’Islam ha innescato una spirale di insofferenza verso le tradizioni
ed i simboli della Fede cristiana nella loro manifestazione pubblica.
Se ne chiede l’eliminazione, l’epurazione, la scomparsa. Il
cristianesimo è parte attiva della cultura europea, e come ogni
cultura rinviene una proiezione visibile nei simboli, poiché il
simbolo in ogni cultura è ciò che unisce.
Ovviamente i musulmani, nel clima di rispetto che l’accoglienza
occidentale offre loro, non hanno alcuna giustificazione per
un’azione continua di avversione alle tradizioni cristiane. La loro
intolleranza per i crocifissi, per i presepi, per i canti natalizi ed
altro di segno cristiano nelle scuole, in luoghi di lavoro od in
altri ambiti pubblici è presentata come una “lotta per raggiungere la
pari dignità sociale garantita a tutti i cittadini italiani dalla
Costituzione” (Dichiarazione dell’Unione Musulmani d’Italia del
dicembre 2001). Così in Italia. Analogamente in altri Stati Europei.
A fronte delle pretese contro i cristiani avanzate in Europa, nessuna
dichiarazione di condanna della condizione giuridica riservata ai
cristiani nei regimi islamici sottoposti a pesanti restrizioni nella
loro libertà religiosa, costretti al pagamento di un’imposta e non
parificati nei diritti politici e civili ai cittadini musulmani.
Ma nemmeno i Governi europei, ancor meno l’Unione Europea, si sono
posti il problema di esigere la reciprocità dai rispettivi Stati
islamici, i quali sono assai solerti a sostenere finanziariamente e
diplomaticamente le comunità musulmane sia nel proselitismo sia nel
mantenimento di posizioni discoste dal contesto europeo.
Quale il senso di questa guerra ai simboli cristiani? Perché sulla
strada della conquista politica dell’Europa (la sua islamizzazione)
l’ostacolo maggiore sono i cristiani, non i democratici agnostici e
increduli incapaci di cogliere con l’ascesa dell’Islam la fine dello
Stato laico e della democrazia politica, nonché illusi di influenzare
l’Islam e di riformarlo secondo le loro concezioni secolariste.
Questa lotta ideologica ai simboli cristiani è guerra di religione,
ed è guerra al cristianesimo in preparazione allo scontro con la
civiltà europea nell’insieme di tutte le sue componenti.
L’integrazione islamica in Europa è un’utopia: chi sta dentro l’Islam
è un fratello, chi sta fuori dall’Islam è un nemico. La seconda forma
assunta dall’emigrazione islamica è quella violenta di lotta armata,
di azioni terroristiche preparatorie della jihad-guerra santa.
I musulmani non sono soddisfatti della libertà di cui godono in
Europa, potendo conservare la propria fede, le proprie tradizioni, la
propria cultura. Essi puntano ad ottenere, come comunità separata,
l’autogoverno religioso-politico attraverso il concilio delle
moschee. Per una precisa scelta ideologica: «Ritroveremo la libertà
soltanto se dichiareremo incompatibili la civiltà dell’Islam e la
civiltà dell’ovest. È giunta l’ora per noi di trovare alternative
alle vacche sacre del capitalismo, del socialismo e della democrazia»
(Kalim Siddiqui, direttore del Muslim Institute for Research and
Planning – Londra, luglio 1989). In ogni parte d’Europa è già
iniziato un braccio di ferro, più o meno conflittuale, nell’esigere
spazi amministrativi e giuridici specifici per l’Islam. Il loro
obiettivo, oltre a cimiteri, macellerie e scuole proprie, è di
conseguire l’applicabilità per le loro comunità del diritto islamico,
iniziando dal diritto di famiglia con tutte le sue norme sul
matrimonio, sul divorzio, sull’eredità, e, quindi l’accesso alla
poligamia ed a procedure assai sbrigative sempre in materia di
matrimonio e di divorzio.
Queste rivendicazioni giuridiche, in partenza ostili all’integrazione
nella società europea e mirate alla formazione di enclave politiche
all’interno degli Stati, avvengono nello sfondo di azioni
terroristiche sempre più frequenti. Gli atti di disturbo a forte
ripercussione psicologica – come l’uccisione di turisti europei in
visita a luoghi arabi, come i sequestri di civili europei in missioni
umanitarie o di lavoro, come il maxi attacco terroristico a Madrid
dell’11 marzo 2004, come i riflessi in Europa delle incursioni
megaterroristiche su suolo russo – puntano in tempi accuratamente
intervallati a sfibrare politici ed intellettuali.
L’Islam è prossimo all’ultima fase della sua strategia di conquista:
quella, cioè, di considerare l’Europa ormai come territorio di
guerra, i cui tempi sono incalcolabili, con tregue intermittenti
secondo un’abile strategia, ma da cui si propone di uscirne
vincitore.
L’Europa, ha scritto il giornalista musulmano Magdi Allam in premessa
ad una sua indagine al jihad in atto in Italia, è «diventata non
soltanto territorio di jihad, di predicazione della guerra santa, ma
anche di formazione e addirittura di esportazione dei “shahid” i
martiri dell’Islam» (giugno, 2003), dove il termine “shahid” indica i
Kamikaze, che si immolano in azioni terroristiche largamente
distruttive e seminatrici di panico.
Il primo obiettivo di questa “guerra santa” è di incutere paura nei
popoli europei, così da indurre disorientamenti e smarrimenti, su cui
tentare di inserirsi per graduali condizionamenti della vita politica
in Europa. Una realtà è certa e consolidata: l’Islam è diventato un
problema permanente di ordine pubblico. L’Europa, al presente,
considera soltanto il versante terroristico dell’Islam quale problema
di polizia. Non si sente ancora oggetto della “guerra santa”
islamica, poiché il jihad è attualmente attivo prevalentemente con
intimidazioni ed azioni di disturbo. Tra non molto inevitabilmente
l’Islam porrà seri problemi di sicurezza militare.
Il quadro è largamente inquietante: un’emigrazione invasiva,
sollecitata a congiungere la prolificità ai flussi migratori sempre
continui, onde sopravanzare numericamente i nativi europei, ed
accompagnata da una crescente guerra ideologica e terroristica. Quale
provvedimento di salvaguardia pensa di adottare l’Unione Europea?
L’ingresso della Turchia!Una Turchia, che dietro un’apparente
condiscendenza, è irremovibile nel ruolo assegnatole dall’insieme
islamico di essere determinante nella conquista dell’Europa: «Nessuno
cerchi di esercitare pressioni sulla Turchia con il pretesto
dell’Unione Europea» (Primo Ministro Tayy Erdogan – Settembre 2004);
«Nessuna condizione speciale per la Turchia è possibile» (Abdullah
Gull, vice premier e ministro degli esteri – Ottobre 2004 ). Bertolt
Brecht ammoniva: «Quando si marcia contro il nemico, è bene essere
sicuri che il nemico non marci alla nostra testa». Chi sta per
tradire la Patria Europea? Chi si oppone all’ingresso della Turchia o
chi si piega nuovo gauleiter al diktat americano?
LA TURCHIA, STATO PRESCELTO PER IL COLPO DI GRAZIA ALLA CIVILTÀ
EUROPEA
Gli Stati europei non possono condividere le istituzioni comunitarie
con uno Stato islamico, quale è la Turchia. La Turchia è uno Stato a
regime islamico, cioè una comunità politica ordinata soltanto per i
musulmani, restando dei tollerati tutti gli altri. La dhimmitudine,
cioè i provvedimenti restrittivi per i non islamici, è ancora vigente
in Turchia. L’ortoprassi islamica prevale sulle norme di adeguamento
all’ acquis comunitario, in quanto un insieme di forme di controllo
sociale e di procedure interne amministrative convergono nel
mantenere lo status quo. Del resto, nel gioco legislativo simulatorio
del l’ acquis comunitario, l’attuale governo presieduto da Erdogan
respinge ogni profondo cambiamento dell’ordinamento islamico, con
l’avallo dei militari. È significativa al riguardo la dichiarazione
resa dal Capo dello Stato turco, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, nel discorso
inaugurale della Conferenza O.C.I. – Organizzazione della Conferenza
Islamica – svoltasi ad Istanbul nel giugno 2004, affermando che le
riforme da introdurre «non devono snaturare le tradizioni del mondo
islamico».
Lo Stato turco si mantiene, altresì, rigorosamente sulla linea
islamica di attribuire l’esercizio dei diritti politici soltanto agli
islamici. I capi dello Stato ed i capi del Governo non possono che
essere islamici. È una sfida alla credulità ritenere che a guidare le
istituzioni possa essere un ebreo, od un cristiano od un ateo
professo. Però, entrando nella Unione Europea, in nome della
democrazia, la Turchia pretenderà al vertice dell’Unione
l’inserimento di un esponente islamico, senza concedere altre
alternative. La Turchia, inoltre, è uno stato basato su un’ideologia
razzista. La Turchia associa all’assolutismo politico-religioso
islamico un nazionalismo di segno etnico: il turchismo. Questo lato
perverso è stato chiaramente enunciato come un requisito costitutivo
dello Stato dal primo successore di Ataturk, il presidente Ismet
Inon: «solo la nazione turca è legittimata a rivendicare diritti
etnici e nazionali in questo paese. Nessun’altra componente ha alcun
diritto di questo tipo». Questo nazionalismo etnico ha provocato
rapporti ostili verso i kurdi e, unendo il pregiudizio etnico
all’identità islamica, la radicale emarginazione dei non musulmani.
Con Erdogan l’influenza islamica sull’educazione nazionale è
crescente. (…). Ma l’Unione Europea non può ignorare le credenziali
che la Turchia deve presentare per l’ingresso in Europa. Si escludono
i riferimenti al defunto Impero Ottomano, per attenersi
esclusivamente ai comportamenti dell’attuale Turchia anatolica dal
suo sorgere ad oggi. Ecco un breve sommario di questi meriti storici:
a) – Il genocidio armeno. Sotto l’influenza dell’ideale panturco il
movimento dei “Giovani Turchi” , costituito prevalentemente da
militari, avendo di fatto il controllo del Paese, ha dato avvio alla
“soluzione finale” del problema armeno con implacabili operazioni di
sterminio dal 1915 al 1916. Gli armeni occupavano parte dell’Anatolia
orientale, che era però il loro territorio natio da oltre due
millenni e mezzo. Resta un caso clamoroso di radicale pulizia etnica.
Il territorio fu completamente svuotato, tra massacri ed esodi
forzati, della popolazione armena. Si calcola sul milione e mezzo il
numero dei morti durante le stragi, mentre quelli scampati in parte
si raccolsero attorno alla capitale Erevan proclamando la “Repubblica
Armena” ed in parte si dispersero in molteplici paesi del mondo. Le
vittime furono presumibilmente di più, poiché sotto l’imperante
ideologia nazionalista, i Turchi eliminarono contemporaneamente
minoranze cristiane formate da cattolici, da caldei, da siriaci
ortodossi, da nestoriani, da protestanti. (…).
b) – La cacciata dei cristiani greco-ortodossi. Kemal Ataturk, armato
dalla Russia bolscevica, uscì vincitore dallo scontro con l’esercito
greco nella guerra combattuta nel biennio 1921-1922. Entro la fine
del 1922 circa un milione e mezzo di greci, tra fuggitivi e
scacciati, avevano lasciato la Turchia. Ma non mancò il bagno di
sangue alla turca. Quando l’esercito turco raggiunse Smirne incendiò
i quartieri, escluso quello musulmano, procedendo a massacrare i
cristiani. La brutalità turca adottava, ancora una volta, lo
sterminio come mezzo per risolvere definitivamente il problema delle
minoranze cristiane. (…)
c) – Pulizia etnica e terra bruciata a Cipro Nord. La Turchia non ha
alcuna giustificazione né di ordine politico né di ordine militare
quando nel 1974 le sue truppe, equipaggiate di armamenti americani,
occupando in pochi giorni il 37% dell’isola di Cipro, hanno dato il
via ad una operazione di pulizia etnica a spese della popolazione
greca: 180.000 greco-ciprioti espulsi, 112.000 greco-ciprioti
desaparecidos. La cieca violenza dell’esercito turco ha colpito pure
i ciprioti di religione islamica contrari all’occupazione: 50-60 mila
sono emigrati in Europa e 500 circa risultano desaparecidos. (…)
d) – Le stragi Kurde. La questione Kurda è sorta con la fondazione
nel 1923 della Repubblica Turca. Mustafà Kemal Ataturk ottenne
l’abrogazione del Trattato di Sèvres (10 agosto 1920), che aveva
riconosciuta l’autonomia locale ai Kurdi. Esso fu sostituito dal
Trattato di Losanna (24 luglio 1923), che includeva qualche articolo
riguardante in generale il rispetto delle minoranze senza nominarne
alcuna. Così fu facile a Kemal Ataturk dare il via a provvedimenti
repressivi. Nel 1924 un decreto ufficiale bandì tutte le scuole, le
pubblicazioni e le organizzazioni Kurde. Successivamente una legge
del 1934 approvò un programma di assimilazione dei Kurdi spostandoli
in area a prevalente etnia turca, affiancato da un piano per
turcizzare le zone kurde. A completamento i governi turchi hanno
tenuto bloccato lo sviluppo economico e sociale, così da provocare
più facilmente l’abbandono kurdo delle loro terre per migrare
altrove.
–Boundary_(ID_VXZy9pgyd0qhMELL2WFoXg)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Nagorno-Karabakh: UN General Assembly To Discuss Occupation Of Azerbaijani Land
By Robert McMahon
Radio Free Europe, Czech Republic
Nov 23 2004
Azerbaijan is hoping a proposed UN General Assembly resolution on its
occupied territory will help resolve a key impediment to peace talks
with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh. The resolution, to be discussed
today (eds: 1600 Prague time), calls for reaffirming Azerbaijan’s
territorial integrity and seeks an investigation into Azerbaijani
claims Armenia is promoting a settlement policy in the occupied
lands. Armenia denies this and has said such a resolution could
undermine the peace process.
United Nations, 23 November 2004 (RFE/RL) – The UN General Assembly
was expected to open discussion today on a resolution seeking to
address Azerbaijan’s concerns about its occupied territories and
sluggish peace process with Armenia.
The resolution calls for a reaffirmation of Azerbaijan’s sovereignty
and territorial integrity 10 years after ethnic Armenian forces won
control over Nagorno-Karabakh and occupied several districts adjacent
to the enclave.
It expresses “alarm and grave concern” at the situation in the area
occupied by Armenian forces, alleging the violation of international
humanitarian laws. The measure also raises concern about reports of
Armenian settlers being transferred to the territories.
Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov told reporters
yesterday that the persistence of such reports, from international
and Armenian sources, was a main factor driving the initiative in
the assembly. The resolution invites the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which is directing peace talks,
to send a fact-finding mission to lands occupied by ethnic Armenian
forces to report on the situation.
“We get greatly concerned that the Armenian government is conducting
a settlers’ policy in the occupied territories, which we consider
as a pure violation of international humanitarian law, including the
Geneva conventions of 1949,” Mammadyarov said.
Diplomats at Armenia’s UN mission did not respond to repeated requests
for comment yesterday. When the issue was placed on the assembly’s
agenda in October, Armenian officials said there were no settlements
in the territories outside the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh and denied
there was any policy to settle those lands.
Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian recently warned that
Azerbaijan’s initiative in the assembly threatened to undermine
mediation efforts under the OSCE’s Minsk Group. A French diplomat
speaking on behalf of the group told the General Assembly in October
that the group did not believe UN was the proper forum to discuss
the matter.
Mammadyarov said yesterday that his government remained committed to
the Minsk process but was looking to spur progress on issues related
to its large number of displaced persons. The resolution, though
nonbinding, would seek to expand international pressure for a solution.
“We do not agree that [the resolution] can create bad consequences
for the peace process,” Mammadyarov said. “We consider that even it
will support the peace process because otherwise you cannot conduct
sincere peace negotiations, and simultaneously behind the scenes [the]
Armenian side [is] conducting negotiations providing the so-called
settlement process.”
The initiative follows strong comments by Azerbaijani President Ilham
Aliyev at the General Assembly debate in September. Aliyev faulted
the UN for neglecting the situation in and around Nagorno-Karabakh,
citing UN Security Council resolutions in 1993 that called for the
withdrawal of ethnic Armenian forces from Azerbaijani territory.
Mammadyarov said he also wants to see countries in the Minsk Group,
especially the United States, become more active in pressing for a
negotiated solution to the conflict.
“The conflict is very, very difficult. Of course, the settlement of
the conflict is not very easy,” Mammadyarov said. “What we’re calling
[for] is that it should be solved only by the efforts of [the whole]
international community.”
The war over Nagorno-Karabakh has driven an estimated 800,000
Azerbaijanis from their homes, about a tenth of the country’s
population. Azerbaijan’s internally displaced people cannot return to
Armenian-occupied territories, and many have been living in wretched
conditions for the past 10 years.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ATLANTIC MONTHLY MAGAZINE PUBLISHED SCENARIO ON WAR AGAINST IRAN
PanArmenian News
Nov 20 2004
20.11.2004 15:17
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Atlantic Monthly magazine for December 2004
published an extensive article on U.S. policy options regarding Iran.
As reported by the source, at a meeting of the war-game group ret.
Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner presented a war-game scenario, which
suggested using Azerbaijan for special forces and airborne attacks
against Iran, along with major thrusts from Iraq, Persian Gulf, and
additional support action from Afghanistan. It further determined
that air bases in Georgia and Azerbaijan were too small to handle
necessary traffic and suggested they be enlarged, dedicating $700
million for that purpose. These are Azerbaijan air bases in
Baku-Bina, Baku-Kala, Sumgait (Nasosny/Sitalchay), Kara Chala,
Kurdamir, Ganje, Daller, Nakhichevan, Lenkoran, Yevlakh. As it can be
seen, no territories controlled by Armenian forces are mentioned
here. The scenario further suggested: “SECDEF, in coordination with
the Secretary of State, is authorized to begin discussions with
Azerbaijan: – To preposition supplies in Azerbaijan that would
support the global war on terrorism. – To work toward expansion of
air bases in Azerbaijan to increase options for US forces in support
of the global war on terrorism. – To offer limited US assistance to
resolve the issues of Nagorno-Karabakh” Armenia did not figure in war
planning. The recommendations related to Azerbaijan and NK were part
of the initial scenario prepared by Col. Gardiner, however, as
reported by the magazine, they along with other preparations for a
potential war with Iran were turned down by the war game panel as
“detrimental to U.S. interests in Iraq.” In the end the panel
confirmed the conventional Washington wisdom that there is no
attractive military option in Iran, but that the President should
continue to threaten Iran anyway to make progress in negotiations.
The source notes that in the real world, meanwhile, U.S. remains
interested in using Azerbaijan in a potential conflict with Iran and
Azerbaijan conditions that use by America’s help against Armenians.
The original article can be found at
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

NAGORNO KARABAKH PRESIDENT VISITED DETROIT WITHIN HIS VISIT TO USA
STEPANAKERT, NOVEMBER 19. ARMINFO. If Goris-Lachin-Stepanakert highway
is the road of life for Nagorno Karabakh, the North-South highway will
become one of the most important elements for economic development of
Nagorno Karabakh, the president of NKR Arkadi Ghukassian told a public
forum in Detroit with the participation of Armenian community in the
city.
The chief information administration services affiliated to NKR
president told ARMINFO that Ghukassian arrived in Detroit on Nov 17
from New York on the occasion of a telethon slated on Nov 25 to raise
money for North-South highway. The raised money will be spent on the
construction of the highway which has strategic meaning for Karabakh
and connects all regions of the republic to each other.
NKR president called on all Armenians to take part in the telethon and
contribute to the social economic development of the republic. The
Armenian community voiced his support to the democratization process
and civil society development in NKR, economic reform and revival of
spiritual values in the republic. The participants voiced their
belief that the current achievements of Karabakh determine the current
attitudes among the Armenian community to render their support to the
economy of the republic.
Similar attitudes were expressed at Nov 18 meeting of Ghukassian with
the faculty and students of Michigan university. The gathered were
especially interested in Karabakh conflict regulation. Ghukassian
reiterated that Karabakh is principally for peaceful regulation of the
conflict with Azerbaijan which unlike Karabakh tries to use force. If
Azerbaijan seriously thought about peace, it would enter into direct
negotiations with Karabakh,” Ghukassian stated.
During the meeting at schools after Aleg and Mari Manukians, it was
underscored to establish closer contacts between Armenian schools of
USA and Karabakh.
The same day, a reception was held in the house of Marta and Diana
Shushanians in the honor of the president where most influential
members of Armenian community in Detroit were invited. -A-
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Armenian Assembly of America
122 C Street, NW, Suite 350
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-393-3434
Fax: 202-638-4904
Email: [email protected]
Web:
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 18, 2004
CONTACT: Christine Kojoian
Email: [email protected]
ARMENIAN ASSEMBLY LEADERS MEET WITH CALIFORNIA ACTIVISTS, SUPPORTERS
Outreach Part of Leadership Meeting Weekend
WASHINGTON, DC – In a push to expand the Armenian Assembly’s community
outreach efforts, Chairman Anthony Barsamian and Members of the Board of
Directors participated in a series of public forums and member events
during a recent weekend in California.
The events, organized in conjunction with the Assembly Board of
Directors meeting in San Francisco, kicked off with a panel discussion
organized by the San Francisco Bay Regional Committee and moderated by
Board Treasurer Berge Ayvazian. Panelists, including Adam Kablanian of
Virage Logic, Tony Moroyan of Viasphere International, Board Member Gail
O’Reilly of Made in Armenia Direct and Anahid Yeremian of CRD Support
Committee, discussed Armenia’s economic development and advances in
scientific research.
The Regional Council helped organize a second area event hosted by
Assembly Development Co-Chair and Fellow Trustee Suzanne Abnous and her
husband Razmik. More than 50 people, including California State Senator
Charles Poochigian (R-Fresno), Board of Trustees President Carolyn Mugar
and several Board of Directors Members, attended the dinner reception
which welcomed more than two dozen new members into the Assembly family.
“The event at the Abnous’ home was very much an extension of the
Assembly’s effort to share information with the community,” said
Barsamian. “Guests asked interesting and thoughtful questions about
Armenia’s current development and issues facing the Armenian-American
community at large. We thank Suzanne and Razmik for opening their home
and hosting an enjoyable evening.”
Following the San Francisco events, Barsamian, together with Board of
Directors Vice-Chair Annie Totah, Executive Director Ross Vartian and
senior staff traveled to Los Angeles to take part in a public briefing
and meetings with community leaders.
On November 7, the group participated in a luncheon with the leaders of
several community organizations including: the Armenian General
Benevolent Union, the Armenian Council of America, Armenia Fund Inc.,
the Armenian Bar Association, the Armenian Professional Society, the
Armenian Rights Council of America, the Armenian Chamber of Commerce,
Medical Outreach for Armenia, the Knights of Vartan, the Ramgavar Party
and the Western Diocese of the Armenian Church.
Later that day, more than 70 area supporters turned out for an
Assembly-led community briefing. Barsamian and Vartian provided an
overview of Assembly programs in Washington, Los Angeles and Yerevan.
They also discussed developments on the legislative front and encouraged
the audiences’ political activism.
“It was a pleasure to see so many familiar faces in this crowd,
including current Assembly supporters and former summer interns,” said
Barsamian. “We hope the community gained as much from our discussions
as we did.”
The Assembly wrapped-up its two-day swing of Los Angeles with a dinner
with media professionals at the Shiraz Restaurant. That event included
Armen Babajanyan of Zhamanak, Harut Der-Tavitian of Nor Serout TV and
Massis Weekly, Vahan Jansezian of Nor Hayastan and Osheen Keshishian of
The Armenian Observer.
The Armenian Assembly of America is the largest Washington-based
nationwide organization promoting public understanding and awareness of
Armenian issues. It is a 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt membership
organization.
NR#2004-099
Photographs available on the Assembly’s Web site at the following links:
-099-2.jpg
Caption: Armenian Assembly Board of Directors Member Lisa Kalustian,
right, with Debbie Poochigan during a reception hosted by Suzanne and
Razmik Abnous on November 6.
Caption: Clockwise from top: Executive Director Ross Vartian, Board of
Directors Members: Lisa Esayian, Edele Hovnanian, Lisa Kalustian, Bryan
Ardouny, Richard Mushegain, Annie Totah, Development Co-Chair and Fellow
Trustee Suzanne and Rasmik Abnous, Board of Directors Members: Ralph
Tufenkian, Peter Vosbikian, Berge Ayvazian, Gail O’Reilly, Van
Krikorian, Board of Trustees President Carolyn Mugar and Board of
Directors Chairman Anthony Barsamian.
Caption: Board of Directors Chairman Anthony Barsamian, left, and
Executive Director Ross Vartian, discuss Armenian-American issues with
community members in Los Angeles on November 7.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

THERE IS NO SMOKE WITHOUT FIRE
A1+
03-11-2004
On Wednesday, opposition activist Arshak Sadoyan, using his legitimate
right to attend government sessions, was present at the government’s
extraordinary session, where the fate of ArmenTel Greek-Armenian
company providing telecommunication services was to be decided.
He is convinced the company is involved in many illegal deals.
Even after the session, Sadoyan remained steadfast in his
determination to stage a protest action outside the government
building.
Sadoyan, as always, accused the government of being involved in
illegal deals.
He said he found out two days ago who takes bribes from Greek side for
giving it extra powers to enlarge its monopoly.
In his words, the bribe-taker is `a member of the government whose
sexual orientation is even unclear’.
Justice minister David Harutyunyan speaking at a news conference after
the session declined to comment Sadoyan’s allegations.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Transitions on Line, Czechia
Nov. 1, 2004
Time for a Change

by TOL
1 November 2004
George Bush talks of the `transformational power of liberty.’ The
post-communist world needs a U.S. leader who would help liberty more.
Everywhere you go in our region there is an unprecedented interest in
the U.S. elections. Some commentators find the interest out of
proportion, arguing that the two presidential candidates’ foreign
policies do not differ vastly.
Their surprise is bizarre and their interpretation of the candidates’
foreign-policy differences probably too narrow. What would be more
amazing is if the world were not so interested. After all, the key
themes of the Bush presidency has been a global `war on terror’ and an
invasion underpinned by a belief in the `transformational power of
liberty’ – and if anyone over the past 15 years has been testing the
`transformational power of liberty’ it is the post-communist world.
Inevitable, then, that these elections are being viewed as crucial. And
for many, the candidates’ utterly different personalities and
approaches make not just for compelling viewing, but ultimately also
for different policies.
Since, in our own way, we monitor the strength and weakness of liberty
in 28 countries, we feel it worth taking this opportunity to consider
the approach and the man best suited to meet our hopes. Those hopes are
for the promotion of democracy, better governance, and accountability,
and for greater security.
Our region, of course, barely featured in the campaign. But in most
other respects, we are making a judgment in the same way as the
American people, based on the candidates’ personalities, approaches,
styles, credibility, and records. And while Bush, as president, has a
bigger record, the senator too has an interesting and important record.
BUSH’S RECORD
John Kerry would of course come to the presidency without a history of
executive power. But that isn’t much of a handicap. Because George
Bush’s list of achievements or policy initiatives in our region is not
very long, and some of it is distinctly disturbing.
The shortness is partly understandable. There is the war in Iraq to
attend to. In Clinton’s time, it was the war in the Balkans that
consumed attention. The United States no longer bears the main
diplomatic burden in the Balkans. Instead, it is the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the European Union that
are forcing the region to deal with the past. It is Europe that can
offer a vision of the future (EU membership), and, militarily,
increasingly it is Europe that is taking responsibility.
In the `wider Europe’ – Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova – the Bush
administration has held the presidents of Ukraine and Belarus
accountable and promoted cooperation with NATO. Zbigniew Brzezinski, an
adviser to ex-President Jimmy Carter, recently wrote that Bush’s
National Security Council has `studiously ignored’ Ukraine `while
naïvely courting’ Russia’s President Putin. That may be true, but the
vision deficit in this area is primarily Europe’s fault. (If Turkey
deserves special status in the EU’s eyes, so does Ukraine.) There are
question marks, too, over the State Department’s approach to Moldova,
but, overall, in Eastern Europe there has been nothing especially
notable about American activity these past four years.
It is in Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia that Bush has left his
mark and, occasionally, earned some points. In Georgia, Washington was
right to put President Eduard Shevardnadze under intense pressure
before and after fraudulent elections that eventually led to the rose
revolution. But it did dismally in Azerbaijan after rigged elections
and feebly in Armenia after deeply flawed votes.
After 9/11, we had expected a major inflow of cash and attention to
Central Asia (thanks to its proximity to Afghanistan) and to the
Caucasus (as a near neighbor of Iraq’s). But, outside the military
sphere, neither the international community nor the United States has
dedicated much in the way of cash or manpower. That is not entirely
their fault (Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan do not even yet allow the
World Bank to help gather statistics), but they have failed
intellectually to grapple with Central Asia’s problems, to push hard
enough for more economic development, and to uphold moral standards. To
be fair, the State Department has made a few good noises in public,
warning that crackdowns on dissent are counterproductive. It has also
said it will withhold a token amount in aid to Uzbekistan ($18
million). But that barely compares with inviting Uzbek President Islam
Karimov to Washington, the centrality of military concerns, and the
lawless example set by Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib in a region where
the term `war on terror’ has been ritually abused and overused. All of
that, and the United States’ new military interests in the region,
leave us skeptical that the United States is working hard enough behind
the scenes to promote a more open society.
Perhaps we should we give Bush more benefit of the doubt. But in the
alacrity of its recognition of Azerbaijan’s `elections,’ Washington
showed how readily national interests – in that case, oil and gas – can
supersede national values. It has also been slow to see and worry about
anti-democratic tendencies, most importantly in Russia. When Bush
looked into Putin’s eyes he famously found love. Over these four years,
when we have looked at his actions, we have found an
authoritarian-in-waiting. Our judgement looks more accurate by the
month. That also strengthens our view on the greatest successes of the
Bush-Putin relationship: Putin’s relatively easy acceptance of NATO
expansion to the Baltics and the war in Afghanistan. Where some saw
great successes for Western diplomacy, we saw a man making a virtue out
of necessity. Putin deserved respect and appreciation for being
realistic but not love and accolades.
In short, in these four years the United States has maintained a
relatively low-key diplomatic approach, quietly completed the landmark
effort to expand NATO to the Baltics, made questionable progress with
Russia, and set a disturbing moral example. More should be expected
from the world’s leader.
Americans should also expect more. Looked at more broadly, Bush’s
presidency has fueled anti-American sentiment, increased cynicism, and
offered people with bad governments and an ugly past – chiefly in the
Balkans–an unhelpful type of comfort: if, in Iraq, the leader of the
greatest power in history can behave cynically and unaccountably (as
they see it), we do not have too much to feel ashamed about after all.
America needs to produce an antidote to such sentiments.
THE NEXT PRESIDENT’S AGENDA
Inevitably, our region has been of secondary importance to Bush. That
will remain the case. But an agenda filled with important issues is
beginning to form for the next president. The European Commission’s
recommendation to invite Turkey to become a member adds weight to the
cross-party U.S. desire to promote the Black Sea as an area of greater
stability. If the United States is serious about that (and, with an oil
pipeline due to run from the Caspian to the Black Sea, it should be),
it will need a more stable Caucasus. With a determined president in
Georgia, it will need to pay more attention to Georgia’s frozen
conflicts, which could in turn focus attention on Nagorno-Karabakh and
Transdniester (Bruce Jackson, chairman of the U.S. NATO Committee, said
on 21 October, that Transdniester is likely to be higher up the next
administration’s agenda). To deal with these issues, the United States
(and Europe) will have to challenge Russia over its role in these
areas.
And if it is serious about security in Central Asia, having beheaded
the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan during the war in Afghanistan, the
United States will have to look deeper at the social and political
problems that fuel unrest and at the drug trade that finances
criminals.
If any of that is to happen, more engagement, a willingness to address
some long-standing problems, a willingness to challenge some difficult
leaders, and a more sophisticated understanding of the `war on terror’
are all required. And since the EU is critically important
diplomatically and economically in the Balkans, the `wider Europe,’ and
Russia, a good relationship with the EU would help.
In other words, a broader understanding is critical, style is a major
tool–not just some embellishment–and a good partnership with Europe
serves U.S. interests.
THE SENATOR’S RECORD
Both style and approach are a problem for Bush. In the days before the
U.S. elections, Bush received a `ringing endorsement’ that he could
have done without–from Putin. The Russian president’s principal
reasoning is that, if Bush is not re-elected, international terrorists
`will celebrate a victory over America and over the entire anti-terror
coalition.’ That endorsement, of course, does not mean the two fully
agree on how to fight the `war on terror’: they disagreed on Iraq and
on Putin’s twisted logic that the Beslan tragedy somehow meant there
must be no local elections in Russia. What it more probably means is
that a man who turned Grozny into Stalingrad and allows his soldiers to
do anything in Chechnya feels happier with Bush’s record, personality,
and attitudes toward him, terrorism, and Chechnya. Not a desirable
commendation.
Kerry offers a better approach and a more promising record. In his 1997
book The New War, Kerry emphasized non-state actors as a source of
instability. As a district attorney, he is credited with major
successes against the local mafia. As a senator, he played a key role
in uncovering the Iran-Contra affair and in efforts to clamp down on
money-laundering and drug-trafficking. All that makes it possible that
he will understand some of the atypical security threats in Central
Asia, Transdniester, and the region as a whole. And with a record of
interest in these issues, there is more chance that he will be
interested in this region. All this also happens to make it likelier
that he will hold some leaders more accountable.
Leaders around the region might, then, not like him much. Russia, for
example, might not take easily to Kerry’s commitment, in a presidential
debate, that he would press Russia to secure its nuclear weapons. But
he also said he would ditch a new nuclear program that Bush is
developing. He has other things to offer as well: a greater willingness
to cooperate, to sign up to international agreements, and – critically – to
work closely with Europe. He would, too, suffer from less of a
credibility gap than Bush. When recently asked in the United States
whether he would send troops to Iraq knowing what he knows now,
Poland’s President Aleksander Kwasniewski, so often cited by Bush in
this campaign, simply replied, `Next question.’ Not a ringing
endorsement from a president whose endorsement is coveted.
A more multilateral approach would, intrinsically, make the United
States more accountable. Whether Kerry would sign up to the
International Criminal Court is another matter. But even if he is
unwilling to hold U.S. troops accountable internationally, he would be
more likely than Bush to bring them to book domestically. As a senator
he criticized the U.S. military’s actions in Vietnam and government
agencies’ relationships with drug-traffickers and gun-runners. Compare
that with a president who brought us Guantanamo Bay and never punished
the man ultimately responsible for the disgrace at Abu Ghraib, Donald
Rumsfeld.
THE VISION THING
Of course, the region will be competing for attention with more
pressing concerns in the Middle East. We do not expect too much (partly
because both houses of Congress may be controlled by the Republicans).
But that is also why we place an emphasis on an appreciation of the
importance of a more multilateral approach, a more nuanced view of
security, and a record of interest in these issues. Moreover, look
again at the agenda we see for the next president and it is clear we
see a problem that needs to be recognized (and that is not too distant
from the problems the United States faces in Iraq): the transition away
from authoritarianism is in trouble and needs help.
Despite a father who was a Cold War head of the CIA, Bush has failed to
recognize that problem – or, at least, to do much to help. Whether Kerry
has or will notice it is open to question. But, as the internationalist
son of a Cold War diplomat who spent a childhood in Europe and a
senator with an interesting record, there is at least a fair chance he
will.
In any case, over the past four years, in this region Bush has given us
little reason to commend him and much to worry about. Kerry offers a
promising alternative and less reason to worry. If Americans opt for a
change, we will be glad.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA
PRESS AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT
375010 Telephone: +3741. 544041 ext 202
Fax: +3741. .562543
Email: [email protected]:
PRESS RELEASE
28 October 2004
Hamlet Gasparian, Spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
answers a question by Armenpress News Agency In Relation to
Azerbaijan’s New Initiative in the UN
Question: Yesterday Azerbaijan raised an issue of “Current Situation
in the Occupied Territories of Azerbaijan” in the UN. How would you
comment on this move?
Answer: Indeed, this issue has been raised in the UN General Committee.
While it has not enjoyed any significant support, it has received
9 pro and 14 abstained votes from 28 member states. The countries
that voted in support of the issue included mostly members of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Ukraine.
We view Azerbaijan’s move as yet another attempt to divert the
attention of the international community from the core issue of the
conflict, i.e. the status of Nagorno Karabagh.
We should also note that in a statement made on behalf of OSCE Minsk
Group, France’s representative stated that the UN General Assembly is
not an appropriate forum for discussing this issue. He further noted
that Azerbaijan’s move to introduce a new item on the negotiations
agenda might have a detrimental impact on the peaceful regulation
process.

Dreaming of Europe
by NEVVAL SEVINDI
Zaman, Turkey
Sept 29 2004
One of the most prominent names in Ottoman Istanbul was a Jewish
doctor named Giacomo di Gaeta, who escaped from Italy’s Renaissance
intolerance, and took refuge in the empire.
In the streets of Istanbul, where Greek, Armenian, Albanian, Bulgarian
and Serbian languages were spoken, besides Turkish, Persian and Arabic,
the attitude that defied nationalism lasted for centuries.
The mutual love and respect that existed in this multinational
and multicultural empire, have not been experienced in Europe yet.
Neighbors celebrated Greek, Armenian, and Turkish festivals together,
one after the other. Istanbul was the place of religious festivals.
Furthermore, they visited each other’s churches and holy graves
together to light candles and pray, as it is today. While Dante
threw Prophet Mohammed into his “hell,” Mevlana called upon all
mankind, saying, “Come whoever you are!” He also said, “This is
not a door.of hopelessness.” When we look at an expanding Europe,
we see that Europeans still have a long way to go. Continuing to see
Western culture as the “superior culture,” in an elite manner, it is
nonetheless incumbent upon Europeans to dream of a new Europe. Along
with the different languages, religions and cultures, Islam will
enter the continent legally for the first time with the help of
Turkey. Turks coming from a culture, where nations and cultures blend
together, can bring a new understanding to the knights of the castle
and the princedoms. Is multiculturalism an ideology that the West
opposes, as Huntington said? Is it not necessary to put and end to
this “only supreme Western Christian culture” ideology of the West,
whose traces from the Middle Ages and later periods have still not
been erased? Europe, which is borderless and multicultural, resembles
a dough that can be reshaped. You can make heart-shaped cookies as
well as bastions. However, can the various cultures from neighboring
countries brought into Western culture form a multicultural world? Or
will the racist views continue, like a caricature published in the
supposedly esteemed Stern magazine? Europe has to cross-examine
itself. It did not do this during the Bosnia War; at least it must
do so while it is expanding.
If Stern can rain insults on Turks as easily as it did, then Neo-Nazis
entering the parliaments in the former East German states should be
no surprise.
Even after 50 years, the existence of strong racist roots, the rise
of neo-Nazism and the far-right indicate that Germany has not yet been
able to grasp the spirit within the EU. Please, dream of a new Europe!
If Europeans, through cross-examination, do not come to face with
their identities and the new multicultural situation in the expansion
process, then this will be left to the fascists and neo-Nazis.
Europeans and Germans, who will be living with Muslim neighbors,
should start opening up their inner senses for discussion right now.
And the Turks have to understand that the European identity is not
only about the economy. The common denominator is humanism and to
share human values.
The debate on whether or not Turkey is a model is on a naive track.
Turkey has become a model as much as it could. It has established a
lifestyle envied by Middle Eastern and Arab countries. It is not an
80-year model, but an-800-year model. Belittling this does not earn
us anything. Does it earn the West anything? For the “alternative”
is Turkey with a working model of Muslim identity. The prejudiced view
of Westerners is normal. Anyway, childish reasons such as Arabs should
not be offended, are by no means materials for books. I hope the hate
channel among nations, divided by artificial borders and antagonism
after the Ottoman rule, will not be Turkey. This is a topic that can
be better understood after reading a little bit of history.
While Europe is admitting us into its fold, it has to dream of
internalizing: A European dream. In this dream, there is love and
toleration of other cultures.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress